Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Chas
Following a debate I would like to get your collective opinion. Does the guarding of (passenger) lift winding gear fall under the scope of PUWER in respect of the guarding of dangerous parts (Reg 11). To put it another way is the winding gear 'work equipment' and if the winding gear/moving parts are not guarded then should they be in order to satisfy Reg 11 of PUWER. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian G Hutchings
Chas
My view is that this is not 'work equipment' as such, as it is not used as a piece of equipment in the process of someones daily work or tasks. However if this presents a hazard to people during maintenance and/or operation it would come under the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regs. I also recall lift specific regulations, but do not personally know them in detail. Perhaps someone else on the forum knows?
What does everyone else think?
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
Hi,
I would guard it or make sure its in such a place that unauthorised persons cant get to it....
just to be safe...
Holmezy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Nicholls
Hi Chas
If its a new lift supplied after June 30th 1999 it must comply with Lifts Regs 1997. Prior to June 30th must comply with Section 6 of HASWA 1974.
Lifts in use must comply with MHSWR 1999, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regs1998 (PUWER), and Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regs 1998 (LOLER)
For maintenance Lift owner has primary duty and should refer to Regulation 5 of PUWER.
Risk assessment dangerous machinery. Long story short Guards yes.
Alan N
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By machinery
Lifts fall under the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC and such such should meet the requirements of the essential health & safety requirements. This includes the CE marking process and verification by a notified body who should confirm that the lift manufacturer has correctly used the relevant EN harmonised standards during the manufacturing process, including the correct use of safeguards.
The lift manufacturer should have carried out a risk assessemnt and identified hazards involved with maintenance such as when access to winding gear is required by fitters, electricians, competent persons etc.
Try asking a machine builder for a copy of their risk assessment, you will be surprised how many do not carry out this even though they secure the CE Mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chas
Thanks for your replies. I note in the PUWER ACOP para 68b) that PUWER applies "to work equipment used in common parts of shared buildings (such as lifts), private roads and paths on industrial estates and business parks and temporary work sites, including construction sites." From this my feeling is that Reg 11 does apply to lift winding gear where the moving parts are not currently guarded. In other words there is an absolute need to retrospectively guard the moving parts. I would welcome further views. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ddraigice
PUWER covers ALL equipment and the regs state that "any machinery, appliance, apparatus or tool and any assembly of components which, in order to achieve a common end, are arranged and controlled so that they function as a whole."
The requirements of reg 11 do apply to all lifts and all parts of machinery where access could be gained. It also applies during the constructioninstallation phase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ali
Lifts are work equipment and therefore the dangerous parts of the lift will come under Puwer 98. The exception may be lifts used exclusively by the public or a lift in a home used exclusively by residents. This situation is not very common, however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian G Hutchings
Having read the responses and gone back through PUWER, it does look like it will be construed as work equipment. However I do think whether the law says guard it or not, if something poses a hazard it should be controlled.
Cheers
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alistair Reid
Chas,
The guide we work to is by risk assessment, if the lift motor room houses only one set of winding gear and no other services are in the room, only the lift engineer and engineer surveyor require access then no guarding is required, the locked and signed door of the motor room suffices. All moving parts should however be painted yellow.
If the motor room houses more than one set of winding gear or access is required by non lift specific personel then guarding is required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ddraigice
Alistair,
What does your risk assessment say about protecting your maintenance workers from parts of dangerous machinery? Painting it yellow is not good enough on its own.
PUWER very definitely applies here and these are the very people who it is trying to protect. As you say, there should be no access to these rooms/areas to members of the public or non-maintenance personnel.
Even if PUWER does not apply, section 2 and 3 duties of the Act requires you to do all that is rp to protect - so even if non-maintenance people could access the dangerous parts then you should be preotecting it (and therefore follow equivalent guidance) - but you should definitely guard it if anyone can access it.
A search of HSE PR database shows a number of fines for this - the highest seems to be for £200,000 in 2002.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
I'm afraid that painting it yellow and locking the room is not adequate. Furthermore, the duty to safeguard dangerous parts of machinary is an absolute duty and is NOT BASED on a risk assessment. See Reg 11(10 and (2) (a) of PUWER 98 below:
11. - (1) Every employer shall ensure that measures are taken in accordance with paragraph (2) which are effective -
(a) to prevent access to any dangerous part of machinery or to any rotating stock-bar; or
(b) to stop the movement of any dangerous part of machinery or rotating stock-bar before any part of a person enters a danger zone.
(2) The measures required by paragraph (1) shall consist of -
(a) the provision of fixed guards enclosing every dangerous part or rotating stock-bar where and to the extent that it is practicable to do so, but where or to the extent that it is not, then
(b) the provision of other guards or protection devices where and to the extent that it is practicable to do so, but where or to the extent that it is not, then
(c) the provision of jigs, holders, push-sticks or similar protection appliances used in conjunction with the machinery where and to the extent that it is practicable to do so, but where or to the extent that it is not, then
(d) the provision of information, instruction, training and supervision.
(3) All guards and protection devices provided under sub-paragraphs (a) or (b) of paragraph (2) shall -
(a) be suitable for the purpose for which they are provided;
(b) be of good construction, sound material and adequate strength;
(c) be maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair;
(d) not give rise to any increased risk to health or safety;
(e) not be easily bypassed or disabled;
(f) be situated at sufficient distance from the danger zone;
(g) not unduly restrict the view of the operating cycle of the machinery, where such a view is necessary;
(h) be so constructed or adapted that they allow operations necessary to fit or replace parts and for maintenance work, restricting access so that it is allowed only to the area where the work is to be carried out and, if possible, without having to dismantle the guard or protection device.
(4) All protection appliances provided under sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph (2) shall comply with sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) and (g) of paragraph (3).
(5) In this regulation -
"danger zone" means any zone in or around machinery in which a person is exposed to a risk to health or safety from contact with a dangerous part of machinery or a rotating stock-bar;
"stock-bar" means any part of a stock-bar which projects beyond the head-stock of a lathe.
Regards Adrian Watson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Christopher Kelly
Equipment in the lift motor room does come under PUWER and LOLER and therefore moving parts should be fenced off.
Other personnel than the lift engineers / engineer surveyor will have access (either under supervision of the keyholder or not): cleaning personnel, building manager, surveyors, fire brigade etc.
Even if the area was accessed only by competent lift maintenance personnel dangerous parts of machinery should be isolated from them so that no unauthorised or inadvertent access is possible until the equipment has been made safe.
I used to carry out H&S inspections of common parts of tenanted buildings and regularly found lift machinery which was unguarded (even when installed post CE), however it is particularly an issue with older equipment. Even knowing the dangers it is very easy to forget that there is a dangerous part behind you when you are looking the other way (especially when it is not moving but can start up at high speed instantaneously).
Lift motor rooms are often confined and walkways narrow, if there at all. Maintenance engineers often seem to work alone also - so it is important for the building manager / owner to consider all the above when carrying out risk assessments for these areas, or ensuring that their contractors risk assessments are adequate.
Similarly lift shafts with two lift cars which are not separated by a fence do not comply with the Machinery Directive or PUWER and the building owner has failed in their reponsibility to carry out a suitable risk assessment.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.